Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: 69er vs. 29er?

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    8

    69er vs. 29er?

    Plus and Minus of each design? Would like to know from people who have actually ridden both styles of bikes. Racers opinion would be helpful as well.

  2. #2
    my church is the woods
    Reputation: moonraker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,061
    having had a 29er and 69er both, i can give you my opinions here.
    the real difference here is in matching the bike to your style, terrain and goals.

    If you ride to climb, 29er
    if you ride to dh, 69er
    if you singlespeed, 29er
    if you bmx'ed, 69er
    if you ride to train, 29er
    if you ride for fun, 69er
    if you r west coast, 29er
    if you r east coast, 69er
    if you dismount for logs, 29er
    if you can bunnyhop, 69er
    if your a roadie crossover, 29er
    if you have a moto background, 69er

    ok: add up all the all the questions you answered yes to and that's the right answer for you!

  3. #3
    i like rocks
    Reputation: euroford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    i'm of the 69ers are silly camp. i love my 29er. no downsides to it for its intended purpose. i can even ride a manual on it.
    Tim M Hovey

    Nukeproof Mega 290
    1950 CJ3a
    1999 BMW 540i
    1999 F350 PSD

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    91
    I might have to disagree about "ride to climb = 29er". It seems like climbing is easier on a bike with smaller wheels (especially the back one) because it spins up easier.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,776
    Quote Originally Posted by Wiggles_dad
    I might have to disagree about "ride to climb = 29er". It seems like climbing is easier on a bike with smaller wheels (especially the back one) because it spins up easier.
    It spins up easier because GERA RATIO is lighter check again 29er with 20x36 in the back and returnb to us and to talk.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: reformed roadie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    It spins up easier because GERA RATIO is lighter check again 29er with 20x36 in the back and returnb to us and to talk.
    I'll assume you meant GEAR RATIO...nothing like typing all caps and misspelling it.

    Anyway, DC's flawed logic continues, as even with the same gear inches, a smaller, LIGHTER wheel will spin-up / accelerate quicker.
    That is important if you ride up technical, rock and root infected climbs...no so much if you are 'trekking' on paved and gravel paths.

    If you argued a 29er has a larger contact patch and thus more traction, or if you said it rolls over stuff better to maintain momentum, then you'd have an valid point.
    But that's not your style...

  7. #7
    my church is the woods
    Reputation: moonraker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,061
    a 69er has a "snap" that 29ers don't, meaning you can accelerate much quicker.
    The biggest advantage on a 29er I found was climbing traction. never had an instance where the back tire spun out and slammed a knee into the stem. you can just point and climb like there were tank tracks giving you grip. Thats why I say if you go singlespeed and have tech climbs, go 29er.

    the 69er to me is much more fun on the downhills. where as the 29er would just roll over everything tough for me to get off the groud ; the 69er feels like you can still pop off the little stuff, like the days of jumping curb cuts on the bmx as a kid, yet still have the big wheel out front that keeps you from getting caught up and endo-ing over the front. The 69er definitely likes more groomed trails, but I've only had the hardtail. a fuel 69er would likely be better suited for rocky stuff.



    can your 29er hit 24 miles of trails and then bunnyhop 27 inches?

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by reformed roadie
    I'll assume you meant GEAR RATIO...nothing like typing all caps and misspelling it.

    Anyway, DC's flawed logic continues, as even with the same gear inches, a smaller, LIGHTER wheel will spin-up / accelerate quicker.
    That is important if you ride up technical, rock and root infected climbs...no so much if you are 'trekking' on paved and gravel paths.

    If you argued a 29er has a larger contact patch and thus more traction, or if you said it rolls over stuff better to maintain momentum, then you'd have an valid point.
    But that's not your style...
    I agree that even under the same gear inches, a 26" wheel would be easier to get spinning from an initial stop. Even "if" a 29er wheel and a 26" wheel were the same weight, the 29" wheel has more mass distributed away from the center of rotation then that of a 26" wheel, making the 29" wheel more difficult to spin.

  9. #9
    www.derbyrims.com
    Reputation: derby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,764
    Quote Originally Posted by Wiggles_dad
    I agree that even under the same gear inches, a 26" wheel would be easier to get spinning from an initial stop. Even "if" a 29er wheel and a 26" wheel were the same weight, the 29" wheel has more mass distributed away from the center of rotation then that of a 26" wheel, making the 29" wheel more difficult to spin.
    True for pavement, but maybe only measurable by a sensitive machine. But on rougher tail with same weight 26 and 29 wheels, and same final drive ratio, the bigger wheel having lower rolling resistance will spin up easier and have less momentum loss. Although to have the same weight 29 wheel it would have to have a much lighter rim and tire and possibly lighter spokes giving up stiffness and tread knob traction.

    Regarding gear ration differences, wet and muddy ride chain suck become even more of a problem using less than a 22 granny for any size wheel.

    I don't have much time on 29 wheels, I'm addicted to fine tuning high tech suspension. But since going to 650b I've noticed in mud conditions that the rear rolls and keeps traction better than a 26 inch wheel. I'd guess that 29 wheels improve mud ride conditions too. Also deep stream crossings are easier to avoid getting hung up and "capsizing" on unseen rocks, sand, and holes. And with 650b the standard 22/32/44 and 11/34, ring and cogs are plenty low enough in range for mud conditions with no real increase in chain suck problems.

  10. #10
    WWYD?
    Reputation: johnnyb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,591
    Quote Originally Posted by derby
    But since going to 650b I've noticed in mud conditions that the rear rolls and keeps traction better than a 26 inch wheel. I'd guess that 29 wheels improve mud ride conditions too. Also deep stream crossings are easier to avoid getting hung up and "capsizing" on unseen rocks, sand, and holes.
    Ray, nice observation. I've switched back to my 29ers for the mud. I can get a little better angle of attack on rocks and roots in the mud and don't slip as much if I can keep my momentum. My 69er is still the favorite for the dry stuff.

    And we both know that the mud is going to be around for awhile

    See you on the trails!

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.